Skip to comments.Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obama’s
Posted on 12/30/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by wrastu
click here to read article
And what, it anything will come of it? Nothing to see here, move along. “And now let’s take a look at the weather............”
This birth certificate stuff just makes us look stupid. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, but where he was born isn’t one of them.
Got that right. I'm only somewhat familiar with the birth certificate issue, but you really don't have to know about any issue to know that if Larry's involved, it's really all about enriching Larry's bank account.
I was skeptical, too, but then I clicked on the link for “Hawaii” and it went to Google Maps and showed that Hawaii is a real place. That was pretty convincing.
Did the map you looked on show Honolulu as being on Oahu?
So tell me why Onaka supposedly verified Honolulu as the birth city but didn’t verify Oahu as the birth island.
Everyone needs to recognize that it's time to move on. I sympathize and agree with the birthers, but we also need to be realistic that this story has long long since run its course and it is a waste of time to pursue it.
>>Hawaii state registrar Alvin Onaka has publicly certified to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that Barack Obamas HI birth certificate is legally non-valid and the White House image is a forgery.<<
Of course Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. Onaka always left himself some wiggle room in his “official” releases. Not so easy under oath.
Just when the State of Hawaii acknowledges that Obama’s birth certificate is legally non-valid, it’s time to drop the issue? That makes no sense. This whole time the Congress-critters have claimed that they have to take Hawaii at its word and that’s why they won’t do anything - and now Onaka has CERTIFIED (which in Hawaii is considered as a person making a sworn statement, according to Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner, when I spoke with him a couple years ago) that his verification, in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 (which requires verification of all submitted facts that CAN be verified as really happening that way), does not include verification of ANY of the submitted birth facts in the application form.
Congress needs to have their feet held to the fire. If they had to take Hawaii at its word when Fukino made carefully-parsed statements from which she couldn’t stray at all (and which never claimed a LEGALLY VALID birth record), then they sure as heck better have to take Onaka’s CERTIFICATION (again, considered a sworn statement according to Hawaii) at its word!
Right now is the FIRST TIME we’ve had the evidence we needed to legally pin Congress’ backs against the wall because of this LEGAL DOCUMENT.
It’s not time to drop out. This is where the real LEGAL battle begins, because Congress members (who would have standing in a lawsuit) have a LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to act on what was revealed in this LEGAL DOCUMENT. They no longer have any legal fig leaf to hide behind, and we need to be banging down their doors to remind them of that!
Onaka never actually gave any official releases. It was all Fukino, Okubo, or Fuddy. None of whom were under oath, as you noted. Very, very easy to make carefully parsed, deceiving comments in that situation. Obama does it almost every time he opens his mouth. The only time a wise person actually believes a politician is if they are under oath and they have evidence to back up what they say.
As I explained in the comment I just made, when I spoke with Deputy AG Aaron Schulaner about laws requiring sworn oaths, he said that the word “certify” is interpreted to mean a sworn statement. So Onaka’s certification of that letter of verification is considered to be Onaka’s sworn statement that what he disclosed was true and in compliance with HRS 338-14.3. He was under oath according to the interpretations of the HI AG’s office.
The US govenment is actively destroying our economy, laws and culture under the leadership of this traitor supported by a sycophant press and the greedy, jealous, lazy, low IQ and unproducing citizenry.
All issues should be on the table and pursued aggressively. Picking and choosing the topics acceptable to the media got us where we are now.
Thank you to all of you brilliant, fearless, curious and relentless researchers.
It's been crap for a good long while now. I'll use a specific example from my home-state and (1) a specific state statute, and (2) a specific rule, both of which illustrate the underlying problems.
New Mexico State Constitution
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.As you can see, the definitions in NMSA 30-7-2.4 make even on-campus housing a restricted place, thereby "abridg[ing] the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense."
A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
(1) a peace officer;
(2) university security personnel;
(3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
(4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
(5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:
(1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
(2) "university premises" means:
(a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
(b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.
Some people argue that this is acceptable because we restrict guns in courtrooms, this is addressed in (2) but like NMSA 30-7-2.4 is illegitimate under the State Constitution as the prosecution of any 'violation' must needs be under the law and the State Constitution is clear that no law should be used for that effect... it literally cuts out the rug from the lawfare tactic (warfare via courts, using other laws to get something done indirectly) and makes using catch-all 'crimes' like disturbing the peace (ex: because he was open carrying) more difficult to abuse.
Another argument raised is 'private property', i.e.: that the university is private property and the university has the ability to set whatever rules it wishes. This is a non-issue to this example: the Constitution forbids a law from abridging the right and the statute ['law'] I have produced abridges the right... whether the property is private, or public, is immaterial. (But for an interesting counter to the argument raised, Art II, Sec 4 specifically cites the right of defending oneself as inalienable, and therefore not "waivable".)
When I go by the courthouses in my old hometown I would see posted there prohibitions on weapons... even the municipal and county courthouses, which directly conflict with "no municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms." You might suppose this could be covered by a state statute, but no such statute exists, and if one did it would be invalid by the same operation that the above invalidates the stature concerning guns on university campuses. Where then do the courts get their 'power' to post such things? The answer, I found, was in "Court Rules" and the following is an example taken from "Rules of the District Court of the Third Judicial District" in Section I ("General Matters General Powers & Duties of the Court").
LR3-113. Court security.Notice now that the jurors, who have not even been accused of a crime, are not only stripped of their weapons by section A, but that only the prisoner is guaranteed protection (B.1).
A. Weapons. All deadly weapons, including knives and objects which could be used to inflict bodily harm, except those carried by court personnel and authorized court security officers, are prohibited in the judicial complex and any other related judicial office. Weapons which are intended for use as trial or hearing exhibits are not subject to this rule. Law enforcement officers who are witnesses shall not carry weapons in the courtroom and shall comply with all applicable sections of the security manual.
B. Prisoner procedures.
(1) The law enforcement agency having custody of any prisoner appearing for a court proceeding shall be responsible for keeping the prisoner secure while the prisoner is at the judicial complex. That agency shall be responsible for searching the prisoner and keeping the prisoner handcuffed or manacled. Prisoners are to be taken to the holding facility in the judicial complex immediately upon arrival, and shall be kept separate from court personnel and members of the public.
(2) No attorney shall have the authority to authorize a prisoner to be released from handcuffs or manacles. Law enforcement officers having custody of a prisoner may remove handcuffs or manacles so a prisoner may sign documents or perform other functions necessary for the court proceeding, and as otherwise ordered by the court.
(3) Prisoners shall not be allowed to mingle with family members or other persons, except at the discretion of the court or law enforcement agency having custody of the prisoner.
C. Other precautions.
(1) Metal detectors and physical searches may be used in any case upon court order.
(2) Any law enforcement officer, court employee or attorney who believes that an altercation or violent situation may occur at a court proceeding should promptly notify the court. The court may implement appropriate security measures on such occasions.
(3) During court proceedings where a party is in custody, security personnel must remain in the courtroom near the prisoner during the entire proceeding.
He serves as long as he does TPTB's bidding.
It's Obama, remember? His ego is so great that he will inevitably go rogue and stop following orders.
He also fancies himself as a Modern Lincoln.
He gets too far off the reservation, and TPTB will complete the comparison, and blame us.
Americas Historic First Martyred Black President and Ascended God...
Tha lament of the Birthers:
Before the primaries we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually his party's candidate.
Before the main election we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he wasn't actually the president elect.
Before the electoral college vote they we the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been elected until the electoral college said so.
Before the congress accepted the electoral college vote we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually been approved until the congress accepted the electoral college vote.
Before was sworn in we made the case.
They said it wasn't the right time because he hadn't actually violated the constitution until he became president.
Now that he is in the White House, they say it's too late, you should have said something sooner!
This man is next in line to become Ambassador to Libya, whether he wants to or not.
“This birth certificate stuff just makes us look stupid. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, but where he was born isnt one of them.”
I disagree. First of all, “where he was born” is a fundamental and constitutional REASON TO OPPOSE HIM, if he was NOT born in the USA, knew he is ineligible, and nevertheless ran for and TOOK office.
Constitutional eligibility requirements matter in the extreme. The reasons are self evident.
That being said, the “birth certificate stuff” is far more than it seems. It’s symbolic. Iconic. It goes to the heart of the problem: WHO IS HE?
Why does he LIE about EVERYTHING concerning his background? He is driven to repeat these proven lies, most recently at a war hero’s funeral.
He cannot be and will not be transparent about the most fundamental document that most people willingly present when they apply for school, a job, etc. You can’t even fly on an airplane these days without the government making sure of who you are. Who is he? We don’t know.
There’s a reason he hides the records. It’s most likely because he’s NOT who he says he is. It’s far beyond where he was born. He may have been born in Hawaii, but to date there’s NO EVIDENCE to prove that. What is he hiding?
It’s not “stupid” for us to ask for proof of who he is and, especially, for proof that he’s constitutionally eligible for the job. Yes, by now there are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama, but what’s “stupid” is to assume that simply because one asks for this man to PROVE his eligibility for the job, then that’s the same as “opposing” him. He’s done plenty over the past four years that deserves opposition, but asking the man to prove he’s who and what he claims to be is not opposition. It’s simple common sense.
What employer hires a person who deliberately obfuscates his identity? It’s a measure of his character. What is it in Obama’s character that drives him to lie about his provenance?
There is a new verification from Dr.Onaka that was issued to Kansas SoS Kobach on September 14th.
Both SoS Bennett and SoS Kobach accepted the verifications as proof of Hawaiian birth, even after they received the letter from Klayman.
In fact, SoS Kobach said, the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.
Besides being the SoS of Kansas, Kris Kobach is also chief counsel for Immigration Law Reform Institute (he helped write Arizona’s and Alabama’s immigration laws) and a Constitutional law professor at University of Missouri at Kansas City. Here is his defense of the Arizona law in a New York Times editorial,
He apparently doesn’t buy the birth certificate is legally non-valid argument.
Thank you for the ping, Tough Guy.
I think I saw this story in the last week or so already. It will be great if something comes of it. Big IF.
Thank you for the short version of your argument. One question: how would Onaka verify the facts surrounding a 50-year-old birth other than verifying what’s on the birth record in their files? As I understand it, you want him to have done something more than check Bennett’s list and the enclosed copy of the BC against the original birth record. But what would that be?
No, it’s not the HDOH’s job to figure out what really happened. All they do is store the records, provide certified copies of records, and tell people whether or not particular birth facts are found on a valid record - in which case the record is prima facia (”on its face”) evidence and the legal presumption is that the facts are true. If somebody wants to claim otherwise they have to come up with evidence to prove that the claims are not true.
But when there’s a problem with the record - when it was completed a year or more after the birth or had major claims changed without a legally-valid reason - Hawaii considers the claims suspect, and HRS 338-17 says that the probative (legal evidentiary) value of the record has to be determined by somebody legally authorized to examine evidence according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
It is precisely because the HDOH CANNOT do that kind of investigation that Obama legally HAS to present the non-valid record as evidence before somebody who CAN. And it can’t be Congress or anybody legislative. It has to be a judicial or administrative person or body; they are the people who are bound to the Federal Rules of Evidence and are thus legally able to make a determination of the probative value and of the actual birth facts.
Onaka is just confirming that the record doesn’t meet the legal standards to be legally valid (be considered prima facia - “on its face” - evidence, evidence which is legally taken at face value unless there is evidence that the claimed facts are not true). Since Obama has no legally-valid (prima facia) record, the legal burden of proof is on him to prove that these facts are true, instead of the burden of proof being on whoever wants to say these facts AREN’T true.
IOW, the legal presumption with a non-valid record is that the facts are NOT true, and it is up to Obama to provide evidence to prove that they are.
Does that help you understand what’s going on here?
So tell me why Onaka supposedly verified Honolulu as the birth city but didnt verify Oahu as the birth island.
OMG, you're right! And for that matter, he neglected to specify Earth as the birth planet!!!!!! This conspiracy goes farther than we dare imagine!!1!!!one!!!!
I remember seeing Kobach’s letter but I don’t remember seeing Dr. Onaka’s response.
The questions stunk.
Kobach asked Onaka to verify that the information contained in the White House image “is identical to” the information in the original record. Onaka wouldn’t verify that. Kobach decided to overlook that, in spite of the fact that Onaka certified (swore) that his verification was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3, which requires him to verify everything submitted to him that he CAN verify.
On what basis did Kobach abandon the legal principle of “presumption of regularity”? What evidence does he have, that Onaka’s verification was NOT in compliance with HRS 338-14.3 as Onaka swore?
If Kobach was going to blow off what Onaka actually said and presume that the information was identical and all was hunky dory, even when Onaka verified the opposite, why did Kobach even ask for a verification? He totally ignored what Onaka verified, given that Onaka said it was in compliance with HRS 338-14.3.
Nice evasion. The law says he has to verify whatever is submitted, if he can. Oahu was submitted as the birth island. If the birth city was Honolulu, then the birth island would have to be Oahu, correct?
So why didn’t he verify Oahu as required by law?
Maybe SoS Kobach recognizes that in order for the information to match, it has to be identical. Look again at his statement the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.
If Kobach doesn’t buy your argument what makes you believe that members of Congress will? If they call SoS Kobach won’t he tell them your theory doesn’t work?
For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. - Luke 12:2
No, because I don't follow how you jumped to the conclusion that there's a problem with the record. As far as I can tell, it went like this:
1. Bennett asked for "a verification in lieu of a certified copy" of Obama's birth record--specifically, a verification "from the record of birth" of a list of items, plus a verification that the COLB is a "true and accurate representation of the original record."
2. Onaka replied "I verify the following," referring to Bennett's list of items, plus "I verify that the information [in the COLB] matches the original record in our files."
Your argument--or Klayman's, anyway--seems to be that verifying that something "matches the original record" isn't the same as verifying that it's a "true and accurate representation." And that all Onaka did was verify that the information matched, not that the information was accurate.
If I'm right in my understanding of your argument, what I'm wondering is how Onaka could verify that the information was accurate, if verifying that it matched the original record isn't good enough.
The whole request and response violated the HDOH’s policies. The HDOH website says that to request a verification you have to fill out an actual application, just like you have to do to request a certified copy of a birth certificate. That’s why the certifying statement at the bottom of the actual letter of verification says that the original record was used to certify the birth facts; you’re not supposed to be able to GET a verification of ANYTHING without submitting the birth facts for the record you’re asking about. I don’t have time to fetch it right now, but Okubo explained in a 2005(?) article why that is - to make sure the requestor and HDOH are talking about the same person.
The only one who actually obeyed the HDOH’s stated rules was Bennett.
And the same certifying statement was on all the verifications, even though Bennett asked for birth facts to be verified and none were, and neither Kobach nor MDEC even asked for any birth facts to be verified OR even provided enough information for the HDOH to be able to verify anything, according to the HDOH’s stated policy, posted on their website. Neither MDEC nor Kobach asked for an exception to the requirement that they submit an actual application, either, (though Kobach asked for expedited service), so it wasn’t that an exception was requested and granted.
The statement saying that the original file was used to verify the birth facts does NOT mean that any birth facts actually were verified on the verification, since none were verified on either the MDEC or Kobach verifications and they still had that certifying statement.
So that certifying statement does not mean that Onaka was verifying the truth of any of the FACTS that were listed on the Bennett verification; he could well have been verifying that those facts are simply “items from the birth certificate”, as Bennett asked. And given that Onaka revealed that the BC is non-valid, that HAS to be what Onaka was verifying on those items: that they are what is claimed on the (legally non-valid) record.
If “matches” means the same thing as identical, then Onaka BY LAW had to verify exactly what Kobach submitted: that the information was IDENTICAL. The fact that he didn’t shows that “matches” and “identical” are NOT the same thing.
And BTW, Onaka also didn’t use the same URL for the White House BC in his verification as what Kobach gave either, and claims that what he compared was this OTHER webpage and the original record. So Onaka altered his response to Kobach’s actual request in 2 different ways. Both deliberate actions since it would have been easier to simply type the verbiage verbatim from Kobach’s request than to make up something different to verify.
You’re overlooking Bennett’s actual application for a verification. He requested that Onaka verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
Onaka never verified any of that, and the only lawful reason for him not to verify it is if those are not the claims made on a valid record. Since Onaka verified that those ARE the claims made on the record the HDOH has, that leaves the non-validity of the record itself as the only lawful reason for Onaka’s failure to verify those things.
Amen! Let it be so!
Thank you for praying. We need to all be praying earnestly.
You mean the information on the request form? That form is designed to request a copy of a record, not to request verification of the record's facts--Bennett just wrote in "verification in lieu of cc." If someone was asking for a "certified copy of a birth record"--the standard use for that form--they'd be providing the info to identify the form, not info they want verified.
Besides, all that info is on the COLB. If Onaka verifies that the info on the COLB matches their records, isn't he also de facto verifying that the info on the request form matches their records? So once again, how would he verify the info on the request form beyond verifying that it matched their records?
The HDOH website says that the procedure for getting a letter of verification is the same as for getting a certified copy, and links to the application form. They also say that a request for verification has to be done via snail-mail or in person.
Whether information matches their records legally means nothing if their record is non-valid. What’s the legal use of information matching a non-valid record? Saying that it matches proves nothing, unless it is somewhere specifically stated that the record it matches is legally valid. That has never been said. And the 1960-64 birth index has been specifically altered to include non-valid records, so the birth index also proves nothing about the validity of the record - and actually RAISES suspicions.
But the way a verification is done is that a person submits the information to be verified, and Onaka writes a letter of verification repeating back the facts that he verifies as true. Anything he doesn’t repeat back on his letter is what they can’t verify because it is not claimed on a legally valid record.
So him not verifying a submitted fact is a big deal. The statute requires Onaka to verify ANY information submitted, if he can certify that it is the way the even actually happened (which is the case if the record is legally valid/prima facia evidence).
The only reason for Onaka to verify the birth city as Honolulu but NOT verify the birth island as Oahu is if he can’t certify that Obama who was born in Honolulu was born on the island of Oahu. He already verified that all the claims actually on the White House image are also on the record they have, so why would he be able to verify Honolulu but not be able to verify Oahu? The logical explanation is that he is not actually verifying Honolulu as the place of birth but just that Honolulu is INDICATED (claimed) on the BC whose existence he is verifying (which is also what the grammatics of his sentence says....)
I forgot to answer your last question. This is how Onaka would verify the truth of submitted claims - without any references to anything “matching” anything:
I, Alvin Onaka, pursuant to HRS 338-14.3 verify that the Hawaii Department of Health has on record a birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama.
I verify that Barack Hussein Obama, II, male, was born on Aug 4, 1961, in Honolulu on the island of Oahu, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
In addition, I verify that the following facts from the birth certificate reflect the true circumstances of the birth event:
1. Hospital: Kapiolani (blah, blah, blah.....)
I also verify that the Certificate of Live Birth posted on the White House website at (blah blah blah) is a true and accurate representation of the original record on file.
So is that the "smoking gun" here--the absence of that statement? I'm wondering how you think Onaka's reply would have been different if in fact he knows the birth record is "legally valid/prima facia evidence." He verified Bennett's list of points, and he verified that the COLB (which contains all the other information Bennett submitted on the request form) matches their records. If he'd just added "..., which is a legally valid record," would that render your argument moot?
I'm sorry, I'm sure you feel like you've explained this a zillion times. But I've never been able to follow all the details of your argument, and since you offered the short version here, I thought I might try to clear up some things.
I am relatively new to FreeRepublic, consequently: caveat emptor.
My perspective is that of an unschooled, hoi polloi. Therefore, I concede that Mr. Obama may be eligible to serve as POTUS. Apart from that concession, those arguing against an investigation regarding eligibility, should acknowledge, that a rational determination cannot be made without an open investigation into the inconsistencies and claims made against the POTUS. Those who peremptorily wish the controversy away, should concede that only neutral forensic experts subject to cross examination be allowed to examine the primary evidence and only then can this speculation be resolved.
The obvious conclusion would to demand that our representative dedicate as much of there resources to resolving this potential constitutional crisis as they dedicate to appearing on various news outlets. But I have little hope, some, but little.
How many verifications from Hawaii have you reviewed?
If in Bennett’s verification Dr. Onaka would not verify the island, why verify the hospital that is on that island? If Dr. Onaka would not verify the mother’s name, why verify the date she signed the BC?
Dr. Onaka verified the 5 or 6 items on the request form by issuing the verification in the first place.
“But what would that be?”
Here is a simple answer for anyone in the Hawaii DOH that has access and has seen the actual, real ‘records’ and their supporting documentation.
If those ‘records’ and supporting documentation has any material that is different or if the history of the ‘record’ over history been amended, replace, altered, etc. and varies or is different or has additional information beyond the (blatant) forgery posted at the WH then they should indicate that the WH posting is a fraud. It is their responsibility to do so. Otherwise they are supporting and aiding in state document forgery. Without looking that must be a crime in Hawaii.
So again, in simple terms. Not calling out fraud that is this well known, when it has basically ‘crossed your desk’ is criminal.
Onaka’s signature is on WH image and he has sent the letters. Clearly he has a right to access the entire record and its associated history.
Its obvious - if the document and the record were as posted at the WH someone would pay for lots of certified actual Hawaii certified copies to hand out. Instead there is a quick meeting with photocopies and a posting of an obvious fraudulent digital image.
The basic issue is ‘document forgery’. Is what the WH posted a real Hawaii record or not? If not - its forgery. And Onaka knows it (or should know it). He should call it out. Instead he dances through ‘in lue of’ procedures. In lue of because what the WH posted was a fraud.
Thanks wrastu. Have a great rest of the day, all.
The only complete sentence Onaka used to say exactly what he was verifying was his statement that he verifies that they have a birth certificate on file for Obama. That is the only FACT that Onaka verified.
All the rest is just saying what is claimed on the non-valid BC they have. Because if everything on the White House image is on the record they have, Onaka has to verify the truth of everything submitted or else verify the truth of none of it.
It’s clear that he never said a peep to verify male, Aug 4, 1961, Oahu, Stanley Ann Dunham, or Barack Hussein Obama.
If he can’t verify the truth of those things even though they’re on the record, then he can’t verify the truth of ANYTHING that’s on the record - and it is thus obvious that whatever he did verify about the other things, it wasn’t that they were the truth.
What I’ve said is totally consistent and logical: He didn’t verify the truth of anything, but only verified that those are the claims “from the birth certificate”, as Bennett requested. There is no cognitive dissonance in what I’ve said.
You, on the other hand, have to give some logical reason why all those inconsistencies exist on this verification. Why verify Honolulu but not Oahu? Why verify Kapiolani but not Oahu? Why verify date of informant’s signature but not verify Stanley Ann Dunham? Why verify date filed but not date of birth?
See, the cognitive dissonance is glaring, if Onaka is actually verifying the truth of any of the birth facts on that birth record. If he can verify the truth of any birth facts, it’s a legally valid record and he can (and must) verify the truth of ANYTHING submitted for verification that’s actually on that record.
No one wants to be the one that sets off the trip wire to the claymore mine this is attached to.
Bennett took a cut - a weak one. Onaka answered the bell - carefully. And all was declared good.
What Onaka could do to terminate this is easy. He can simply indicate that the image posted by the WH is match - both information wise and image wise to what Hawaii has on file. Then he can provide a certified printed copy of the actual original LFBC record and show it matches exactly what the WH has posted.
I am sure this is coming once someone can get the digital library updated. After all the ‘originals’ have been transferred to a digital (likely optical) library years ago. But the challenge with these read only optical libraries is that they changing a record is hard - on purpose - since they were designed to permanently archive paper documents.
No official in office anywhere wants this to escalate. That is obvious.
Well-said. And that’s actually what HI statute says - that non-valid records have no legal probative value until their probative value is determined when the record is submitted as evidence to a judicial or administrative person or body. All most of us have wanted is for that to happen. Obama has spent a lot of time and money making sure it doesn’t happen, and the courts have said it is nobody’s business. Congress is too chicken to do anything.
It’s a sad, sad mess.
How many verifications from Hawaii have you reviewed?
I have viewed the 3 that have been issued. How many have you viewed?
The same. That’s why I don’t claim to know what is the standard format for a verification. You may be right that a standard verification format would include specific statements about the six items that are included on the request form or you may be wrong. Those six items may be implicitly verified by the issuance of the verification.
I just find it interesting that the items not specifically verified in Bennett’s verification are the items on the request form. But Dr. Onaka has no problem verifing everything else on the BC. While also certifing that all the information on the pdf matches all the information on the original BC.
On the whitehouse pdf what island is named in box 6b? And according to all three known certified verifications that information matches the information in box 6b on the original BC.
If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?
See, no matter what argument you try to make, Onaka’s own inconsistencies will bite you in the butt. The only explanation that explains it all is that Onaka verified only that the specifically-mentioned birth facts are “from the birth certificate” (as Bennett specifically worded his request ON THE PAGE BESIDES THE APPLICATION) - that is, that they are what is contained on the legally non-valid record (which is why he cannot verify anything from the actual application form).
Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka can’t interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. There’s no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things. He only snuck in Honolulu by saying that the birth record they have “indicates” (claims) a Honolulu birth.
Do not forget that the word he is willing to use is “matches”. He is not willing to use the words “is identical to”; he will not verify that, even though he has to verify it if he can. Matches makes no difference if the record is non-valid, and if it meant the same thing as “identical” he would have verified what Kobach actually submitted for verification: that the information contained in the WH image is “identical to” the information contained in the genuine record. He also wouldn’t verify that the WH image is a “true and accurate representation of the original record on file”.
If what you think he’s saying is what he was really saying, he would have just verified exactly what he was asked. He refused, and that gives it away that what he said is NOT that the WH image is genuine and identical to the original.
“If all the items are implicitly verified by the issuance of a verification, then why did Onaka specifically mention Honolulu but not the other items?”
We don’t know what Dr. Onaka was thinking. Maybe he thought he was just being thorough by adding the statement about being born in “Honolulu, Hawaii.”
Hawaii code says “A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.”
The problem as I see it is that we have three unique verifications that were based on three unique requests. We don’t know what standard format for a verfication is. I would guess that if I asked for a verification of a birth and if all of the items on my request form matched the original BC, I would not get an item by item verification but only a simply “I verify the existence of the original record” or words to that effect. Implict in that is that the items on the request form are “as stated by the applicant.”
But if I enter wrong information in the request form (such as Kauai instead of Oahu), then maybe I would receive an item by item verification with the wrong items not being verified.
If the birth city was Honolulu, then the birth island would have to be Oahu, correct?
So why didnt he verify Oahu as required by law?
Is this a trick question?
“Why are only the items from the request form excluded? Because those are the only ones that Onaka cant interpret as being a request for verification that it is the CLAIM on the birth certificate. The verification request form is a request that those particular items be verified as the way the event happened. Theres no way to fudge that, so Onaka could not verify any of those things.”
I’m not following your logic here. According to Bennett’s e-mail to Dr. Onaka,
“Enclosed please find a request for a verification in lieu of a certified copy for the birth record of Barack Hussein Obama II. In addition to the items to be verified in the attached form, please verify the following items from the record of birth:”
Bennett specifically asks Dr. Onaka to “verify the following items from the record of birth”. So if Dr.Onaka cannot verify the request form items, how can he verify the additional items that come from the same record of birth?
Are you saying that Bennett’s request form says Oahu but the original birth record says something else?